By granting tax exemptions to religious organizations, Congress may have already violated Article I of the Constitution. These same religious organizations want to be able to endorse candidates and maintain their constitutionally questionable tax exempt status. Revoke the tax exempt status and let them endorse candidates. That would be the truly 'conservative' action if one considers preserving the Constitution as 'conservative.'

Churches have become big business - they need to be taxed like any other. Churches are supposed to teach the word of God, not get involved in politics. Aligning themselves on issues s/b forbidden. People go to church for solace, not to back candidates or issues; at least, they SHOULD be going for religious purposes, none other.

This should be retroactive back to the 2000 election. If one of the "Christian","Jewish" or "Muslim" type churches or groups wants to back any politician all churches of the said "faith" will be taxed. All of them, no matter what denomination they are.

Religious leaders, as individuals, endorse candidates by actively supporting campaign events, inviting them to religious or community events, and by telling their "flock" about their feelings. I think most people let that go as protected 1st amendment speech. The limitation on churches being addressed here, I suspect, is that "The Religion" can't officially endorse a candidate nor can it spend its tax exempt assets in aiding and supporting any candidate. This is the same for all 501c(3) entities and, if this is the point of this law, it should be voted down. They can reorganize as a different kind of entity and gain the right to endorse (and very different taxation rules) if it's that important.

Churches should be treated like every other nonprofit; tax-exemption if they refrain from political activity, charitable-status (donations being tax-deductible) if they actually use a majority of their resources on social work rather than prosletysing. We shouldn't be automatically granting charity status to churches that do nothing more than have services during which they incite homophobia. 509(c)(3) calls any religious activity charitable, but why?? It's not socially beneficial, per se. Certainly the more religious parts of the country have above average incidents of virtually every social harm.

stupid!

Section two is so preposterously vague that I could start a church tomorrow that supported any political position and gain tax exemption. Similarly, since many religious organizations are , as it states, "axiomatically in support" of a particular position, many of them may not fairly be considered religious organizations either. We've seen how well religion has performed for other governments that permit its free mingling with politics.

It has been said that this legislation is a jumbled mess, especially section 2. Well, "no organization described in subsection (b) may be denied its Federal tax exemption" really cannot be more clear. Also, this cannot violate the "First Amendment" in that this legislation does not establish a religion any more than it prohibits anyone from practicing their religion. The main confusion may be that people are going in to read it with an erroneous preconception as to what it really states.